Ephesians 2:4-6 (NKJV – emphasis mine) — But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together …

I have noted before on my blog that legalism mocks God’s grace. If we are raised in a home that doesn’t perform “worldly” externals, and all Christianity is about is not doing those “worldly” externals, then God hasn’t really saved us from much — we weren’t dead in our trespasses; we just had the sniffles.

A couple weeks ago, Neil wrote about labels, and how they can be helpful at times — and downright useless and silly at other times. The latter issue was the larger portion of his post and (although he didn’t initially identify it at the time of the writing), I was one of the people that he wrote about who had been incorrectly and unfairly labeled. (He later went back and filled readers in on who the label-ers were. ‘Twas a hop, skip, and jump from there to figure out who the label-ees were.)

Unfortunately, for any “fact-checkers” out there, the background of my incident can’t be accurately checked, as the moderators of the site on which I was labeled chose to conveniently excise large parts of the exchange in which either (a) I made a strong point or (b) they looked foolish in retrospect. But that’s not why I’m writing this, anyway …

I was attempting to answer the question “Is Francis Chan emergent?” by noting that the important question was not whether or not someone had attached a label to Chan, but whether or not what he teaches/writes is the truth. As the questioner appeared to truly be researching Chan, but coming up empty, I pointed her to a couple of bookreviews and a brief (and, for me, convicting) video by Chan.

(For what extremely little it was worth, one of the book reviews included a quote from Chan that pretty much answered her irrelevant question.)

Having just made the point that the issue was truth (not labels), the very next comment — by a moderator, no less — asked me if I was emergent. Quite frankly, I was stunned at how incredibly and thoroughly he had missed my entire point. I felt like tapping the mic and asking, “Is this thing on?”

I temporarily evaded the question, as it was no more relevant for me than it was for Chan. However, after a while, it became obvious that I was never going to get that point through, even though I repeated it numerous times in different ways. So I just (metaphorically) threw up my hands and answered their question. I worked off a list of teachers/writers that one of my accusers had provided, and (I’m sure to their utter shock) largely agreed with their stances on these men.

But then I “messed up” and dragged God into the conversation (what was I thinking?):

Bottom line though: While none of those men are on my bookshelf, I do not think God incapable of using them to speak truth to me.

The responses to this statement (all of my others “disappeared”) made things abundantly clear — they were so utterly focused on these men, that they totally (dis)missed God. One can only come to the conclusion that they do think God incapable of using those men.

There was even a great, though certainly unintended, illustration of this. One of the moderators has an image in his signature line — riffing off of President Obama’s “Hope” slogan — that says “Hopeless” (complete with the same logo in the “O” as was in the original). While no fan of the president by a long shot, I have to note that this image says infinitely more about the moderator’s view of God than his view of the president.

I ran across a post on another blog today about some truly horrific people — murderers, drunkards, adulterers, pimps, prostitutes — the scum of the earth. Oddly, they’re all characters cited in Genesis, many of whom were greatly used by God. And some of them don’t even have the “good” testimonies of how they did all that bad stuff before they met God, and walked the straight and narrow ever since.

The phrase “another gospel” (riffing off Galatians 1) has been perverted in its overuse to mean “that with which we do not agree”. And, to be sure, I saw that phrase used often in the discussions surrounding Chan and others. But to claim (even indirectly) that God is incapable of using anyone requires not only the ignoring of large portions of Scripture, but an outright mockery of God’s grace and the heart of the gospel message.

That, my friends, is truly “another gospel”.

Galatians 1:9 (NKJV – emphasis mine) — As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Welcome to SlicedLaodicea. It’s different from your blog because here we discuss the facts instead of attacking and maligning those who we disagree with. Please, read my article on what was done at the Saddleback Christmas Service. Please, feel free to disagree with my opinion that the historic Gospel message was clearly delivered.

Please, read my post on the “straw man” that Bob DeWaay sets up in trying to prove that Rick Warren has somehow left his evangelical faith for a New Age ideology. Please feel free to disagree with the specifics.

Nobody is hiding here, Ingrid, we’re not even hiding behind your comment to me when you banned me from your site and I quote:

“I have only my site and only a couple of helpers to screen comments. I do not have Rick Warren’s vast resources to spread his message. Surely, I am entitled this one blog without being required to post JohnD’s purpose driven dogma.”

Well, at this site Ingrid, we don’t even have one or two helpers to restrict the commenting so it’s come one come all. I wonder what would happen at your site if you allowed unrestricted comment for a day? You would probably get some garbage, but I’m guessing you would expose yourself to a lot of valid criticism. Who knows, we all might learn something in the dialog process.

By the way, the comment in question that angered you so much was two verses from 1 Peter. Here was the post:

Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude. Donâ€™t repay evil for evil. Donâ€™t retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will bless you for it.1 Peter 3:8-9 (NLT)

I do like the fact that you called it “Purpose Driven dogma” because I’ve always believed that what we teach at Saddleback is the Bible.

Todd documents his conversations with Ken Silva, revealing that a) Ken is as rude and condescending in private as he is in public; b) Ken’s an idiot when it comes to understanding the internet, IP addresses and proxies; and c) Ken doesn’t have the temperment to qualify for a position of a pastor/elder.

Basically, Todd tries to document an attempt at reasonable exchange with Mr. Silva – something many of us have tried (and failed at) doing, through no fault of Todd’s.

Memorable Quotes:

[Ken, in full sanctimonious mode] Your offense is between you and God because specifically based on your actions yesterday and today I have more than good reason to mark you according to Romans 16:17.

Scott Ragan’s comment:

Though his hypocrisy is evident to many, the depth and breadth of it is still astounding. Watching â€œReverendâ€ Ken and his whole operation (i.e. – his â€œmissives,â€ his practice of linking to his own articles to support/prove statements that he is making in his other articles, his habit of quoting the words of the Lord and applying them to himself, his â€œdare not rebuke the Lordâ€™s anointedâ€ attitude, his affected way of writing to try and pull of a tone of learned 18th/19th century authority, etc) is like watching one of those huge accidents that they used to show on ChiPSâ€¦slow motion disasters that keep getting worse and worse by the second.

Over on Verum Serum we have an ongoing exchange with an atheist who comes by to take pot-shots, ridicule posts that we have put up, mock our faith, etc. I can handle all of this guyâ€™s comments without a problem, but a couple times he has tried to lump â€œReverendâ€ Ken and me together and I have almost come unglued! At this point in my Christian walk, few things are more offensive to me than to be put in the same category with the good â€œReverendâ€ and his pal Ingrid.

Ken is an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention, even while he decries the “emergent vipers” and “purpose driven madness of Rick Warren” that are “rapidly apostasizing” that denomination. Why he continues to hold his credentials in the SBC is a mystery to me. He tells me it’s because a denomination’s leadership doesn’t make it apostate. If you figure that one out, let me know.

Source:To the Tune of TimComments: Tim was (briefly) a great commenter on Slice, someone with excellent reasoning abilities and obvious compassion. As you can most likely guess, he didn’t last all that long before he was banned for disagreeing with Ken’s company line that Donald Miller is a unregenerate heretic. Tim has an incredibly well-written description of his being kicked out of the ‘lifeboat’ of Slice.Memorable Quotes:

My most favorite song of his is called “Jesus is for Losers”. In an interview that I saw from the first ever Christian music video program, filmed in Pittsburgh, the host Tom Green (not the MTV guy) asked Steve Taylor how he came up with the song. Steve responded, as only Steve Taylor could, that he was sitting on the toilet reading a magazine about how a porn star became a Christian, and his initial reaction was “Great! That’s just who we need representing…” and he stopped himself realizing that if Jesus isn’t for the people who are living completely opposite of what God wants, and if Jesus isn’t for the people at the end of their rope, and if Jesus isn’t for the poor, the hungry, and so on, then who is Jesus for? He wouldn’t be for me because I have it altogether, right? Unless I recognize that I, too, am a loser (aka sinner).

—

The responses were either labeling of me or further name-calling of Miller and the church community with whom he lives and worships. Pressing the point further did not motivate the author to return to the actually questions I ask, simply to walk away saying we wouldn’t agree so what? One commentor chastised me for being disrespectful, which was quickly refuted by another saying: “Tim has presented the most coherent, and I think respectful, critique of Ken Silva, a man who regularly disrespects and maligns “ordained pastors” himself, that I’ve seen on here in a while. Give him a break.“

—

I did not receive notice that I have been banned, just that when I try to post, I get an error saying that I am not allowed to comment. So just as there is an avoidance to constructive challenges or dialog, there is also an avoidance now of any dialog.

My first reaction was short anger. This lasted approximately 2 seconds. My next reaction was laughter, not as in a joke, but in a realization of irony that something I said must have been too true. My third, and longest, reaction was contemplation, wondering what is was exactly that I said that got me kicked out of their lifeboat.

On Saturday,Â I came to a realization some ofÂ Kenâ€™s readers had picked up on much faster than I hadÂ (props to Amy, whom Ken wonâ€™t even address, from a seeminly misogynistic standpoint – see http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529#comment-2821) – Ken so strongly believes he is on a â€œmission from Godâ€ to denounce Bell that he has taken upon himself the same autority as Jesus or Paul (see his use of John 7:24, Matthew 22:29 , I Cor 15:10, I Peter 2:23 in this thread).Â In doing so, he has started to exhibit symptoms that some mightÂ correlate toÂ a God complex.

Perhaps it my last post, regarding something I’d read on Slice that seemed a bit two-faced, was the final straw.

I’m not a true Christian, maybe, not enough points? I can’t goose step high enough? Not willing to take someone else’s word for it?

What was that about being a Berean?

—

But now I’m not Christian enough because I took the time to disagree with them. Or maybe I wasn’t lady-like enough. Maybe there’s no room in some Christian discussion for going after a bothersome point or question full bore, no room for brashness, no room for someone in a discussion who doesn’t know all the polite code words, the right way to hold a tea cup…no room for a female Peter. I really don’t know.

—

This lesson I’m very sure of: I don’t have to sort it all out. Sorting and ordering everything is not the point, though it’s a hard pill to swallow. I see that it is better to have the unsettled feeling of knowing things aren’t sorted rather than the comfort of never asking the questions. I don’t have to understand everything because frankly, that’s an impossibility. Anyone who indicates they know it all exactly no questions what-so-ever are exactly the man (or woman) you should not be following. Instead, I have to have faith that where I’m going, despite the confusing road signs along the way, is the right direction because the Map I’m using is the True Map, a map you gotta read every day. And that, I’m finding, is a very great lesson indeed. Even with such minor hurts as being blacklisted by a Christian web site.

Ah well. Another day. It’s kind of funny and ironic in a way; Slice regularly posts on Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church plan calling for the removal of people who don’t fit his movement. I’ve just gotten a little taste of such removal from the pot; I’ve no desire to follow the black kettle, though.

Comments: Bob documents the beginnings of the ‘good’ emergentno (as opposed to the bad one), and the addition of Slice to its RSS feed.

Here, Bob also documents a known flaw in Slice’s blacklisting protocol which blacklists thousands of people who have never even commented, but whose internet service is through a proxy server (in this case, Starbucks/T-Mobile).Memorable Quotes:

I know that all of this is probably counter-productive in the long run (in the sense that we should probably just ignore critics who don’t have our best interest at heart and are unable to comment on anything positive in amongst all the finger pointing…), but…